Page 66 - The extraordinary leader

Great Leaders Make a Great Difference • 43

A great deal of research has been done on individuals who achieve
high levels of individual performance. The researchers, Anders
Ericsson and Neil Charness, described having exceptional ability or
talent as “expert performance.” These researchers have produced a
great deal of empirical research on the question of whether people are
born with “innate talent.” 7
Most people believe that there are individuals possessing superior
intelligence and aptitude who distinguish themselves and are referred
to as gifted. The philosophy of gifted individuals dates back to periods
of time when kings and rulers were called “royalty.” The implication
of royalty is that there is some genetic or inherited difference between
individuals. The idea that many individuals can develop exceptional
ability is inconsistent with the idea that “only my son is qualified to be
king.” A review of the literature reveals that appropriate training can
have a dramatic impact on performance. Research in music
performance revealed that children who showed little sign of musical
talent but who were trained with the Suzuki method achieved
equivalent levels to those of musical prodigies. A common conception
is that most child prodigies show innate abilities at a young age.
Research into the backgrounds of those with exceptional talent shows
a great deal of evidence toward the personal interests of children but
very little evidence of any innate ability.
The reality is that people who are considered prodigies in music,
chess, athletics, or other areas all had a very consistent pattern. All
showed interest in their talents, and all practiced from between two to
four hours a day for 10 years. The 10-year mark was an amazingly
similar finding regardless of musical, mathematical, or athletic talent.
There is very strong research to show that expertise as a violinist
correlated almost exactly with the number of hours of practice.
Experts practice over 10,000 hours, the next level about 7,500 hours,
and the next level 5,000 hours. Ericsson and Charness concluded
their analysis by stating, “The traditional view of talent, which
concludes that successful individuals have special innate abilities and
basic capacities, is not consistent with the reviewed evidence.” They
went on to say that more plausible explanations of individual
differences “are factors that predispose individuals toward engaging in
deliberate practice and enable them to sustain high levels of practice
for many years.”